Federal Pell Grant Program, 39613-39617 [2013-15709]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
vessels who have been authorized to act
on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit
through or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port of San Diego or
his designated representative.
(2) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.
(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast
Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio,
flashing light, or other means, the
operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted
by other federal, state, or local agencies.
Dated: June 21, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013–15828 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 690
[Docket ID ED–2012–OPE–0006]
RIN 1840–AD11
Federal Pell Grant Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Secretary adopts as final,
without change, the interim final rule
published on May 2, 2012, that
amended regulations for the Federal Pell
Grant program, to prohibit a student
from receiving two consecutive Federal
Pell Grants in a single award year. The
final amendments implement provisions
of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(HEA), as amended by the Department
of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011.
DATES: Effective July 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacquelyn C. Butler, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room
8053, Washington, DC 20006–8542.
Telephone: (202) 502–7890.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request
to the program contact person listed
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Jul 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
On May 2,
2012, the Secretary published an
interim final rule in the Federal
Register (77 FR 25893), corrected on
July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40805),
implementing provisions of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as
amended by the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011, Public Law
112–10, § 1860(a)(2), 125 Stat. 169–70
(2011).
In the interim final rule, the
Secretary—
• Delineated the conditions for
calculating a Federal Pell Grant for a
payment period (77 FR 25894);
• Removed the provision for
awarding Federal Pell Grant payments
from two Scheduled Awards (77 FR
25894);
• Specified when an institution may
assign a crossover payment period that
occurs over two award years (77 FR
25894);
• Specified when an institution may
pay a transfer student attending more
than one institution during an award
year (77 FR 25894); and
• Removed regulations that
established procedures for awarding a
student his or her second Scheduled
Award in an award year (77 FR 25895).
The interim final rule was effective on
the date of publication, May 2, 2012,
and the Secretary requested public
comment on whether changes to the
regulations were warranted.
Additionally, the interim final rule was
corrected on July 11, 2012 (77 FR
40805). After considering all comments,
the Secretary adopts the interim final
rule without change. This document
contains a discussion of the comments
we received.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary’s
invitation, 10 parties submitted
comments on the interim final rule.
An analysis of the comments received
since publication of the interim final
rule follows. We group major issues
according to subject, with appropriate
sections of the regulations referenced in
parentheses. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor
changes—and suggested changes the
law does not authorize the Secretary to
make.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters
expressed support for the regulatory
changes in the interim final rule. One
commenter objected to the Secretary’s
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39613
decision to waive rulemaking. The
commenter noted that the public should
have the opportunity to comment on
proposed regulations through a notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Discussion: The Secretary appreciates
the commenters’ support. We disagree
with the comment that these regulations
should have been submitted to the
public as proposed regulations for
notice and comment. As we discussed
in the interim final rule, under the
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed
Effective Date section, the Department
generally offers interested parties the
opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553). However, the APA provides
that an agency is not required to
conduct notice and comment
rulemaking when the agency for good
cause finds that notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The
Secretary determined that there was
good cause to waive rulemaking under
the APA because the statutory change to
prohibit a student from receiving two
Federal Pell Grants in a single award
year would have resulted in some
students losing their Federal Pell Grant
eligibility if we delayed making the
regulatory change to amend § 690.64 (77
FR 25897). Notice and comment to
amend §§ 690.63, 690.65, and 690.67
was unnecessary because we merely
updated these sections to reflect
statutory changes in Public Law 112–10
that prohibit a student from receiving
two Federal Pell Grants in a single
award year.
Changes: None.
Payment Period in Two Award Years
(§ 690.64)
Comments: One commenter asked if,
for a crossover payment period, more
than six months of a payment period
occurs in an award year, must the
Federal Pell Grant award be made from
that award year. Another commenter
thanked the Department for the
regulatory change under § 690.64(a) and
(b), noting that the change would allow
an institution to comply with the
regulations governing the standards of
administrative capability under 34 CFR
668.16 when awarding a Federal Pell
Grant.
Discussion: In August 2008, the
Higher Education Opportunity Act
(HEOA), Public Law 110–315, added
section 401(b)(5) to the HEA, and
allowed an eligible student to receive
two Federal Pell Grant Scheduled
Awards during a single award year.
Before then, institutions were required
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
39614
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
to assign a payment period that crossed
over two award years to the award year
where more than six months were
scheduled to occur. With the removal of
the two Pell provision from the statute,
we did not revert back to the pre-HEOA
regulations. Instead, the interim final
rule amended § 690.64(a)(2) to provide
that an institution must determine for
each Federal Pell Grant recipient the
award year in which the payment
period will be placed, giving
institutions the ability to assign a
crossover payment period in a way that
best meets the needs of its students.
The Secretary agrees with the
commenter about the effect of
§ 690.64(a) and (b).
Changes: None.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Transfer Student: Attendance at More
Than One Institution During an Award
Year (§ 690.65(c) and (f))
Comments: One commenter requested
confirmation on whether the regulations
apply to the annual Scheduled Award
amount or the amount of the Pell Grant
Lifetime Eligibility Used. This
commenter also questioned whether a
transfer student is required to repay the
Federal Pell Grant funds that exceeded
his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant
for the award year. Two commenters
were concerned that the change to these
regulations would negatively affect
transfer students. One commenter noted
that students who transfer mid-year to a
different school would be harmed by
these regulations.
Discussion: The term used throughout
the Federal Pell Grant program
regulations is ‘‘Scheduled Federal Pell
Grant’’ which is the amount of a Federal
Pell Grant that is paid to a full-time
student for a full academic year. In other
publications, e.g., the Federal Student
Aid Handbook, we use the term
‘‘Scheduled Award’’ which has the
same meaning as ‘‘Scheduled Federal
Pell Grant.’’ The term ‘‘Pell Grant
Lifetime Eligibility Used’’ is the total of
each award year’s percentage of the
student’s Scheduled Award that was
disbursed for the student. The Pell
Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used is
required to comply with the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112–74). The law included
a provision that limits a student’s
eligibility for Federal Pell Grant funds to
a maximum of 12 semesters (or its
equivalent).
Because the maximum amount of a
Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award a
student can receive each year is equal to
100 percent, a student’s Pell Grant
Lifetime Eligibility Used must not
exceed six years or a total of six
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Jul 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Scheduled Federal Pell Grants (600
percent).
Section 690.79 provides that a student
is liable for any Federal Pell Grant
overpayment made to him or her, except
if the overpayment occurred because the
institution failed to follow the
procedures in the Federal Pell Grant
program regulations or the Student
Assistance General Provisions
regulations under 34 CFR part 668, in
which case, the institution would be
liable. A student is not liable for, and
the institution is not required to attempt
recovery of or refer to the Secretary, a
Federal Pell Grant overpayment if the
amount of the overpayment is less than
$25 and is not a remaining balance.
A student who receives a Federal Pell
Grant at one institution and then
subsequently transfers to a second
institution in the same award year may
receive a Federal Pell Grant at the
second institution for that portion of the
award year in which the student is
enrolled and has remaining Federal Pell
Grant eligibility at that institution that
does not exceed the student’s Scheduled
Award.
Although the commenter is correct
that a transfer student may be negatively
affected, e.g., the student will receive
only the remaining portion of his or her
Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award
rather than a full Scheduled Federal Pell
Grant award at the second institution,
the change in the law prohibits a
student from receiving more than one
Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award
during a single award year.
Changes: None.
Receiving Up to Two Scheduled
Awards During a Single Award Year
(§ 690.67)
Comments: Four commenters opposed
the removal of the provision that allows
an otherwise eligible student to receive
a second Federal Pell Grant Scheduled
Award in an award year. One
commenter noted that with the
reduction in Federal Pell Grant funds,
students will be limited by the number
of classes they may register for, and this
may discourage accelerated program
completion. Other commenters opined
that without the additional Federal Pell
Grant funds, students will be forced to
incur more loan debt in order to
complete their postsecondary education.
Discussion: Section 1860(a)(2) of
division B of the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law
112–10), repealed section 401(b)(5) of
the HEA under which an otherwise
eligible student could receive more than
one Federal Pell Grant in an award year.
While we understand the commenters’
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
concerns, the Secretary does not have
the authority to change statutory
requirements.
Changes: None.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive Order.
The statutory elimination of the two
Pell Grant option as reflected in this
regulatory action is economically
significant and subject to review by
OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other
things, and to the extent practicable—
the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are adopting this interim rule as
final without change only after a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis presented in the interim final
rule, the Department believes that these
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with the Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. We discussed the
potential costs and benefits of these
regulations in the interim final rule. (77
FR 25895).
Waiver of Delayed Effective Dates
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) generally requires that
regulations be published at least 30 days
before their effective date, unless the
agency has good cause to implement its
regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)).
In addition, these final regulations are a
major rule for purposes of the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5
U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the
CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Jul 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
after the date on which the rule is
published in the Federal Register.
Section 808(2) of the CRA, however,
provides that any rule which an agency
for good cause finds (and incorporates
the finding and a brief statement of
reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, shall take effect at
such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.
As stated in detail in the interim final
rule, 77 FR 25897 (May 2, 2012),
because these final regulations merely
reflect statutory changes and remove
obsolete regulatory provisions and, in
the case of § 690.64, protect students
from receiving reduced amounts of Pell
Grant funds, there is good cause to
waive the delayed effective dates under
the APA and the CRA and make these
final regulations effective on the day
they are published.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These final regulations affect
institutions that participate in title IV,
HEA programs, and individual Pell
Grant recipients. The effect of the
elimination of two Pell Grants in one
year will depend on the extent students
replace the funds from other sources or
change their academic plans, the
distribution of recipients of a second
Pell Grant, and the alternative use of the
funds. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis presents an estimate of the
effect on small institutions of the
statutory changes implemented through
these final regulations. In the interim
final rule, the Department welcomed
comments about the estimates of the
costs and benefits of the changes
implemented in these final regulations.
While some commenters questioned the
benefits of Pell Grants or the effect of
the changes on transfer students, no
comments were received about the
specific estimates of the effect on small
entities presented in the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (77 FR
25895–25897).
Succinct Statement of the Objectives of,
and Legal Basis for, These Final
Regulations
These final regulations remove
regulatory provisions related to the
availability of two Pell Grants in one
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39615
year to comply with section 1860(a)(2)
of division B of the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112–
10), which repealed section 401(b)(5) of
the HEA under which an otherwise
eligible student could receive more than
one Federal Pell Grant in an award year.
Description of and, Where Feasible, an
Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which These Final
Regulations Will Apply
These final regulations affect
institutions that participate in title IV,
HEA programs and loan borrowers. The
definition of ‘‘small entity’’ in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act encompasses
‘‘small businesses,’’ ‘‘small
organizations,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ The
definition of ‘‘small business’’ comes
from the definition of ‘‘small business
concern’’ under section 3 of the Small
Business Act as well as regulations
issued by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA). The SBA defines
a ‘‘small business concern’’ as one that
is ‘‘organized for profit; has a place of
business in the U.S.; operates primarily
within the U.S. or makes a significant
contribution to the U.S. economy
through payment of taxes or use of
American products, materials or labor
. . . .’’ ‘‘Small organizations’’ are
further defined as any ‘‘not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned
and operated and not dominant in its
field.’’ The definition of ‘‘small entity’’
also includes ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions,’’ which includes ‘‘school
districts with a population less than
50,000.’’
Data from the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) indicate that roughly 3,448
institutions representing approximately
63 percent of those institutions
participating in the Federal student
assistance programs meet the definition
of ‘‘small entities’’ when all private
nonprofit institutions are classified as
small because none is dominant in the
field. If the $7 million in revenue
requirement were applied to private
nonprofit institutions, the number of
small entities would be reduced to 2,386
or 43.6 percent of institutions. Table 2
summarizes small institutions and their
percent of AY 2008–2009 Pell Grant
recipients and amounts by sector.
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
39616
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—AY 2008–2009 PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS AND AMOUNTS BY SECTOR
Small institutions
Recipients No.
Public 4-year ....................................................................................................
Private nonprofit 4-year* ..................................................................................
Private for-profit 4-year ....................................................................................
Public 2-year ....................................................................................................
Private nonprofit 2-year* ..................................................................................
Private for-profit 2-year ....................................................................................
Public <2-year ..................................................................................................
Private nonprofit <2-year* ................................................................................
Private for-profit <2-year ..................................................................................
Percent of
sector
recipients
4
444
52
88
147
405
202
61
983
0.7
30.0
24.6
8.5
86.5
69.6
87.4
93.8
89.4
Percent of
Pell Grant
recipients
$
(percent)
0.0
5.6
1.0
0.8
54.6
21.1
62.6
51.4
44.5
0.0
5.9
1.0
0.7
53.3
21.5
61.6
51.1
44.4
Source: IPEDS 2008–2009.
* Applies $7 million revenue standard to private nonprofit institutions for informational purposes. If not applied, the number of institutions in the
private nonprofit sectors would be 1,479 four-year, 170 two-year, and 65 less-than-two-year institutions. All Pell Grant recipients and Pell Grant
disbursements in the private nonprofit sectors would be small entities.
Using the distribution of Pell Grant
recipients and amounts at small
institutions from Table 2 and the
Department’s estimated two Pell Grant
recipients and amounts, the estimated
maximum cost to small institutions
across all sectors for the period from
2011–2012 to 2015–2016 is
approximately $1.67 billion. The
estimated recipients and amounts by
type of institution are summarized in
Table 3. The amount of grant aid lost for
any individual institution will depend
on the extent the second Pell Grant
option was utilized at that school. If
distributed evenly across all small
entities, with nonprofit institutions
subject to the $7 million revenue
requirement for a more uniform profile
of institutions, an annual average of
$150,000 would not be available from
second Pell Grants in one award year.
As discussed in the Summary of
Potential Cost and Benefits section of
the interim final rule, much of this
revenue will be available from other
sources including the preservation of
the maximum grant level in the Pell
Grant Program, student earnings or
savings, and increased student debt.
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS AND AMOUNTS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS
Estimated Pell Grant recipients at small institutions
AY 2011–12
AY 2012–13
AY 2013–14
AY 2014–15
AY 2015–16
Public 2 yr ............................................................................
Public 4 yr ............................................................................
Private ..................................................................................
Proprietary ............................................................................
4,060
143
18,152
78,907
4,963
175
22,190
96,459
4,997
176
22,342
97,120
5,123
181
22,904
99,562
5,256
185
23,501
102,157
Total ..............................................................................
101,263
123,787
124,636
127,770
131,100
Estimated Pell Grant amounts in millions at small institutions
AY 2011–12
AY 2012–13
AY 2013–14
AY 2014–15
AY 2015–16
Public 2 yr ............................................................................
Public 4 yr ............................................................................
Private ..................................................................................
Proprietary ............................................................................
10.6
0.4
43.9
215.7
13.0
0.5
53.8
264.4
13.3
0.5
55.1
270.8
13.8
0.5
57.3
282.0
14.5
0.5
59.9
294.6
Total .....................................................................................
270.5
331.6
339.6
353.7
369.4
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Source: IPEDS 2008–2009 and Department of Education estimates.
Description of the Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of These Final
Regulations, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will
Be Subject to the Requirement and the
Type of Professional Skills Necessary
For Preparation of the Report or Record
These final regulations do not impose
any new reporting, record keeping, or
other compliance requirements on
institutions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:55 Jul 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Identification, to the Extent Practicable,
of All Relevant Federal Regulations
That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With These Final Regulations
These final regulations are unlikely to
conflict with or duplicate existing
Federal regulations.
Alternatives Considered
No alternatives were considered for
the amendments to §§ 690.63(g)(1),
690.63(h), 690.65(c), 690.65(f), and
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
690.67 because these changes
implement changes to the HEA enacted
by Congress and the Department did not
exercise discretion in developing these
amendments. With respect to § 690.64,
the Department could have left the
current regulations in place. However,
such an action would have led to
potentially serious adverse effects on
students, as described in the Waiver of
Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
section of the preamble in the interim
final rule.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
47 CFR Parts 51, 53, 63, and 64
These final regulations do not create
any information collection
requirements. With the removal of
§§ 690.63(h) and 690.67 and the revision
of § 690.64, due to the statutory changes,
the paperwork burden associated with
those sections are also removed. This
change results in the discontinuation of
information collection 1845–0098 and,
therefore, the elimination of 109,605
burden hours associated with that
collection.
[CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10, WC Docket
No. 10–132; FCC 13–69]
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
You may also view this document in
text or PDF at the following site:
www.ifap.ed.gov.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number: 84.063 Federal Pell Grants)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 690
Colleges and universities, Elementary
and secondary education, Grant
programs-education, Student aid.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Dated: June 26, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the interim final rule that
amended 34 CFR part 690, published at
77 FR 25893 on May 2, 2012, is adopted
as final without change.
[FR Doc. 2013–15709 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:51 Jul 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Data Practices, Computer III Further
Remand: BOC Provision of Enhanced
Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Report and Order
eliminates comparably efficient
interconnection (CEI) and open network
architecture (ONA) narrowband
reporting requirements applicable to the
Bell Operating Companies (BOCs).
These requirements have been in place
to monitor the BOCs’ compliance with
access and interconnection services that
they must offer to competitive enhanced
service providers (ESPs). The
Commission no longer relies on the
reports in the course of its decision
making, and there is nothing in the
record indicating that the reports
contain information that is useful to
ESPs. Eliminating them will improve
the way the Commission collects, uses,
and disseminates data, including by
altering or eliminating collections that
are no longer useful or necessary to
carry out our statutory responsibilities.
DATES: Effective August 1, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jodie May, WCB, CPD, (202) 418–1580
or Jodie.May@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
Report and Order, we permanently
eliminate annual, semi-annual,
quarterly, and non-discrimination
reporting requirements applicable to the
BOCs’ narrowband CEI and ONA
services. The Commission implemented
these reporting requirements under its
Computer III framework to monitor the
BOCs’ compliance with the obligation to
provide non-discriminatory access to
basic network services for unaffiliated
ESPs. In August 2011, the Commission
Bureau waived the reporting
requirements pending resolution of the
issues in the Report and Order. The
Report and Order furthers the
Commission’s efforts to modernize
agency data collections and reduce
reporting burdens where appropriate
and consistent with the public interest.
SUMMARY:
I. Background
1. On February 8, 2011, in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (CEI/ONA
Notice), the Commission proposed
eliminating the legacy CEI/ONA
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39617
narrowband reporting requirements
required under the Computer III
safeguards ‘‘due to a lack of continuing
relevance and utility.’’ 76 FR 11407–01
(Mar 2, 2011). The CEI/ONA Notice
stated that the Commission does not
rely on any of the submissions in the
course of its decision making. On
August 11, 2011, the Bureau granted on
its own motion a waiver of the CEI/ONA
narrowband reporting requirements
pending resolution of the CEI/ONA
Notice. The Bureau stated that, while it
did not prejudge the outcome of the
rulemaking, the record suggested that
the reports are of limited utility and did
not justify the burden and expense of
preparing them. Review of Wireline
Competition Bureau Data Practices,
Computer III Further Remand
Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998
Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of
Computer III and ONA Safeguards and
Requirements, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10–132, CC
Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10, 26 FCC Rcd
11280, 11280–81, para. 3 (2011). No
commenter to the CEI/ONA Notice
supported retaining the reporting
requirements.
2. The CEI/ONA Notice sought
comment on eliminating the BOCs’
annual, semi-annual, quarterly, and
non-discrimination reporting
requirements. Prior to the waiver
described above, the BOCs filed annual
reports containing projected
deployment schedules for ONA services
by type of service and percentage of
access lines and by market area;
disposition of individual requests for
ONA services, including action on
requests deemed technically infeasible;
information about ONA services that
were offered through technologies that
were new at the time the Commission
adopted the requirements, such as
Signaling System 7 and Integrated
Services Digital Network systems;
information about operations support
services and billing; and extensive lists
of services that the BOC used for its own
enhanced services operations. The BOCs
were also required to file semi-annual
reports containing a consolidated
nationwide matrix of ONA services and
corresponding state and federal tariff
descriptions, computer diskettes and
printouts of all tariffs, information on
118 categories of network capabilities
requested by ESPs, and the BOC’s ‘‘ONA
Services User Guide,’’ all on paper and
diskette. They filed non-discrimination
reports or affidavits, most on a quarterly
basis, that published intervals for
installation, repair dates, trouble
reports, and timelines for BOC
E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM
02JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39613-39617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15709]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 690
[Docket ID ED-2012-OPE-0006]
RIN 1840-AD11
Federal Pell Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary adopts as final, without change, the interim
final rule published on May 2, 2012, that amended regulations for the
Federal Pell Grant program, to prohibit a student from receiving two
consecutive Federal Pell Grants in a single award year. The final
amendments implement provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(HEA), as amended by the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011.
DATES: Effective July 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacquelyn C. Butler, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW.,
Room 8053, Washington, DC 20006-8542. Telephone: (202) 502-7890.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact
disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 2, 2012, the Secretary published an
interim final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 25893), corrected on
July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40805), implementing provisions of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the Department of Defense
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Public Law 112-10,
Sec. 1860(a)(2), 125 Stat. 169-70 (2011).
In the interim final rule, the Secretary--
Delineated the conditions for calculating a Federal Pell
Grant for a payment period (77 FR 25894);
Removed the provision for awarding Federal Pell Grant
payments from two Scheduled Awards (77 FR 25894);
Specified when an institution may assign a crossover
payment period that occurs over two award years (77 FR 25894);
Specified when an institution may pay a transfer student
attending more than one institution during an award year (77 FR 25894);
and
Removed regulations that established procedures for
awarding a student his or her second Scheduled Award in an award year
(77 FR 25895).
The interim final rule was effective on the date of publication,
May 2, 2012, and the Secretary requested public comment on whether
changes to the regulations were warranted. Additionally, the interim
final rule was corrected on July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40805). After
considering all comments, the Secretary adopts the interim final rule
without change. This document contains a discussion of the comments we
received.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation, 10 parties submitted
comments on the interim final rule.
An analysis of the comments received since publication of the
interim final rule follows. We group major issues according to subject,
with appropriate sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes--and
suggested changes the law does not authorize the Secretary to make.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the regulatory
changes in the interim final rule. One commenter objected to the
Secretary's decision to waive rulemaking. The commenter noted that the
public should have the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations
through a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Discussion: The Secretary appreciates the commenters' support. We
disagree with the comment that these regulations should have been
submitted to the public as proposed regulations for notice and comment.
As we discussed in the interim final rule, under the Waiver of
Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date section, the Department generally
offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 553). However, the APA provides that an agency is not
required to conduct notice and comment rulemaking when the agency for
good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The Secretary determined that there was good cause
to waive rulemaking under the APA because the statutory change to
prohibit a student from receiving two Federal Pell Grants in a single
award year would have resulted in some students losing their Federal
Pell Grant eligibility if we delayed making the regulatory change to
amend Sec. 690.64 (77 FR 25897). Notice and comment to amend
Sec. Sec. 690.63, 690.65, and 690.67 was unnecessary because we merely
updated these sections to reflect statutory changes in Public Law 112-
10 that prohibit a student from receiving two Federal Pell Grants in a
single award year.
Changes: None.
Payment Period in Two Award Years (Sec. 690.64)
Comments: One commenter asked if, for a crossover payment period,
more than six months of a payment period occurs in an award year, must
the Federal Pell Grant award be made from that award year. Another
commenter thanked the Department for the regulatory change under Sec.
690.64(a) and (b), noting that the change would allow an institution to
comply with the regulations governing the standards of administrative
capability under 34 CFR 668.16 when awarding a Federal Pell Grant.
Discussion: In August 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act
(HEOA), Public Law 110-315, added section 401(b)(5) to the HEA, and
allowed an eligible student to receive two Federal Pell Grant Scheduled
Awards during a single award year. Before then, institutions were
required
[[Page 39614]]
to assign a payment period that crossed over two award years to the
award year where more than six months were scheduled to occur. With the
removal of the two Pell provision from the statute, we did not revert
back to the pre-HEOA regulations. Instead, the interim final rule
amended Sec. 690.64(a)(2) to provide that an institution must
determine for each Federal Pell Grant recipient the award year in which
the payment period will be placed, giving institutions the ability to
assign a crossover payment period in a way that best meets the needs of
its students.
The Secretary agrees with the commenter about the effect of Sec.
690.64(a) and (b).
Changes: None.
Transfer Student: Attendance at More Than One Institution During an
Award Year (Sec. 690.65(c) and (f))
Comments: One commenter requested confirmation on whether the
regulations apply to the annual Scheduled Award amount or the amount of
the Pell Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used. This commenter also
questioned whether a transfer student is required to repay the Federal
Pell Grant funds that exceeded his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant
for the award year. Two commenters were concerned that the change to
these regulations would negatively affect transfer students. One
commenter noted that students who transfer mid-year to a different
school would be harmed by these regulations.
Discussion: The term used throughout the Federal Pell Grant program
regulations is ``Scheduled Federal Pell Grant'' which is the amount of
a Federal Pell Grant that is paid to a full-time student for a full
academic year. In other publications, e.g., the Federal Student Aid
Handbook, we use the term ``Scheduled Award'' which has the same
meaning as ``Scheduled Federal Pell Grant.'' The term ``Pell Grant
Lifetime Eligibility Used'' is the total of each award year's
percentage of the student's Scheduled Award that was disbursed for the
student. The Pell Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used is required to comply
with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74). The
law included a provision that limits a student's eligibility for
Federal Pell Grant funds to a maximum of 12 semesters (or its
equivalent).
Because the maximum amount of a Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award
a student can receive each year is equal to 100 percent, a student's
Pell Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used must not exceed six years or a
total of six Scheduled Federal Pell Grants (600 percent).
Section 690.79 provides that a student is liable for any Federal
Pell Grant overpayment made to him or her, except if the overpayment
occurred because the institution failed to follow the procedures in the
Federal Pell Grant program regulations or the Student Assistance
General Provisions regulations under 34 CFR part 668, in which case,
the institution would be liable. A student is not liable for, and the
institution is not required to attempt recovery of or refer to the
Secretary, a Federal Pell Grant overpayment if the amount of the
overpayment is less than $25 and is not a remaining balance.
A student who receives a Federal Pell Grant at one institution and
then subsequently transfers to a second institution in the same award
year may receive a Federal Pell Grant at the second institution for
that portion of the award year in which the student is enrolled and has
remaining Federal Pell Grant eligibility at that institution that does
not exceed the student's Scheduled Award.
Although the commenter is correct that a transfer student may be
negatively affected, e.g., the student will receive only the remaining
portion of his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award rather than a
full Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award at the second institution, the
change in the law prohibits a student from receiving more than one
Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award during a single award year.
Changes: None.
Receiving Up to Two Scheduled Awards During a Single Award Year (Sec.
690.67)
Comments: Four commenters opposed the removal of the provision that
allows an otherwise eligible student to receive a second Federal Pell
Grant Scheduled Award in an award year. One commenter noted that with
the reduction in Federal Pell Grant funds, students will be limited by
the number of classes they may register for, and this may discourage
accelerated program completion. Other commenters opined that without
the additional Federal Pell Grant funds, students will be forced to
incur more loan debt in order to complete their postsecondary
education.
Discussion: Section 1860(a)(2) of division B of the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law
112-10), repealed section 401(b)(5) of the HEA under which an otherwise
eligible student could receive more than one Federal Pell Grant in an
award year. While we understand the commenters' concerns, the Secretary
does not have the authority to change statutory requirements.
Changes: None.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive Order.
The statutory elimination of the two Pell Grant option as reflected
in this regulatory action is economically significant and subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things, and to the extent practicable--the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety,
[[Page 39615]]
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are adopting this interim rule as final without change only
after a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis presented
in the interim final rule, the Department believes that these
regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with the Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. We discussed the potential
costs and benefits of these regulations in the interim final rule. (77
FR 25895).
Waiver of Delayed Effective Dates
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that
regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date,
unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). In addition, these final regulations are a major
rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801,
et seq.). Generally, under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days
after the date on which the rule is published in the Federal Register.
Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an
agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal
agency promulgating the rule determines.
As stated in detail in the interim final rule, 77 FR 25897 (May 2,
2012), because these final regulations merely reflect statutory changes
and remove obsolete regulatory provisions and, in the case of Sec.
690.64, protect students from receiving reduced amounts of Pell Grant
funds, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective dates under
the APA and the CRA and make these final regulations effective on the
day they are published.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These final regulations affect institutions that participate in
title IV, HEA programs, and individual Pell Grant recipients. The
effect of the elimination of two Pell Grants in one year will depend on
the extent students replace the funds from other sources or change
their academic plans, the distribution of recipients of a second Pell
Grant, and the alternative use of the funds. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis presents an estimate of the effect on small
institutions of the statutory changes implemented through these final
regulations. In the interim final rule, the Department welcomed
comments about the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes
implemented in these final regulations. While some commenters
questioned the benefits of Pell Grants or the effect of the changes on
transfer students, no comments were received about the specific
estimates of the effect on small entities presented in the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (77 FR 25895-25897).
Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, These
Final Regulations
These final regulations remove regulatory provisions related to the
availability of two Pell Grants in one year to comply with section
1860(a)(2) of division B of the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), which repealed
section 401(b)(5) of the HEA under which an otherwise eligible student
could receive more than one Federal Pell Grant in an award year.
Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which These Final Regulations Will Apply
These final regulations affect institutions that participate in
title IV, HEA programs and loan borrowers. The definition of ``small
entity'' in the Regulatory Flexibility Act encompasses ``small
businesses,'' ``small organizations,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdictions.'' The definition of ``small business'' comes from the
definition of ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the Small
Business Act as well as regulations issued by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA). The SBA defines a ``small business concern'' as
one that is ``organized for profit; has a place of business in the
U.S.; operates primarily within the U.S. or makes a significant
contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of
American products, materials or labor . . . .'' ``Small organizations''
are further defined as any ``not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.'' The
definition of ``small entity'' also includes ``small governmental
jurisdictions,'' which includes ``school districts with a population
less than 50,000.''
Data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) indicate that roughly 3,448 institutions representing
approximately 63 percent of those institutions participating in the
Federal student assistance programs meet the definition of ``small
entities'' when all private nonprofit institutions are classified as
small because none is dominant in the field. If the $7 million in
revenue requirement were applied to private nonprofit institutions, the
number of small entities would be reduced to 2,386 or 43.6 percent of
institutions. Table 2 summarizes small institutions and their percent
of AY 2008-2009 Pell Grant recipients and amounts by sector.
[[Page 39616]]
Table 2--AY 2008-2009 Pell Grant Recipients and Amounts by Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small institutions
-------------------------------- Percent of
Percent of Pell Grant $ (percent)
Recipients No. sector recipients
recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public 4-year................................... 4 0.7 0.0 0.0
Private nonprofit 4-year*....................... 444 30.0 5.6 5.9
Private for-profit 4-year....................... 52 24.6 1.0 1.0
Public 2-year................................... 88 8.5 0.8 0.7
Private nonprofit 2-year*....................... 147 86.5 54.6 53.3
Private for-profit 2-year....................... 405 69.6 21.1 21.5
Public <2-year.................................. 202 87.4 62.6 61.6
Private nonprofit <2-year*...................... 61 93.8 51.4 51.1
Private for-profit <2-year...................... 983 89.4 44.5 44.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IPEDS 2008-2009.
* Applies $7 million revenue standard to private nonprofit institutions for informational purposes. If not
applied, the number of institutions in the private nonprofit sectors would be 1,479 four-year, 170 two-year,
and 65 less-than-two-year institutions. All Pell Grant recipients and Pell Grant disbursements in the private
nonprofit sectors would be small entities.
Using the distribution of Pell Grant recipients and amounts at
small institutions from Table 2 and the Department's estimated two Pell
Grant recipients and amounts, the estimated maximum cost to small
institutions across all sectors for the period from 2011-2012 to 2015-
2016 is approximately $1.67 billion. The estimated recipients and
amounts by type of institution are summarized in Table 3. The amount of
grant aid lost for any individual institution will depend on the extent
the second Pell Grant option was utilized at that school. If
distributed evenly across all small entities, with nonprofit
institutions subject to the $7 million revenue requirement for a more
uniform profile of institutions, an annual average of $150,000 would
not be available from second Pell Grants in one award year. As
discussed in the Summary of Potential Cost and Benefits section of the
interim final rule, much of this revenue will be available from other
sources including the preservation of the maximum grant level in the
Pell Grant Program, student earnings or savings, and increased student
debt.
Table 3--Estimated Pell Grant Recipients and Amounts at Small Institutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Pell Grant recipients at small institutions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public 2 yr..................... 4,060 4,963 4,997 5,123 5,256
Public 4 yr..................... 143 175 176 181 185
Private......................... 18,152 22,190 22,342 22,904 23,501
Proprietary..................... 78,907 96,459 97,120 99,562 102,157
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 101,263 123,787 124,636 127,770 131,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Pell Grant amounts in millions at small institutions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public 2 yr..................... 10.6 13.0 13.3 13.8 14.5
Public 4 yr..................... 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Private......................... 43.9 53.8 55.1 57.3 59.9
Proprietary..................... 215.7 264.4 270.8 282.0 294.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 270.5 331.6 339.6 353.7 369.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IPEDS 2008-2009 and Department of Education estimates.
Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of These Final Regulations, Including an
Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the
Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary For
Preparation of the Report or Record
These final regulations do not impose any new reporting, record
keeping, or other compliance requirements on institutions.
Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Regulations That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With These Final
Regulations
These final regulations are unlikely to conflict with or duplicate
existing Federal regulations.
Alternatives Considered
No alternatives were considered for the amendments to Sec. Sec.
690.63(g)(1), 690.63(h), 690.65(c), 690.65(f), and 690.67 because these
changes implement changes to the HEA enacted by Congress and the
Department did not exercise discretion in developing these amendments.
With respect to Sec. 690.64, the Department could have left the
current regulations in place. However, such an action would have led to
potentially serious adverse effects on students, as described in the
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date
[[Page 39617]]
section of the preamble in the interim final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These final regulations do not create any information collection
requirements. With the removal of Sec. Sec. 690.63(h) and 690.67 and
the revision of Sec. 690.64, due to the statutory changes, the
paperwork burden associated with those sections are also removed. This
change results in the discontinuation of information collection 1845-
0098 and, therefore, the elimination of 109,605 burden hours associated
with that collection.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF,
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following
site: www.ifap.ed.gov.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.063 Federal Pell
Grants)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 690
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education,
Grant programs-education, Student aid.
Dated: June 26, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim final rule
that amended 34 CFR part 690, published at 77 FR 25893 on May 2, 2012,
is adopted as final without change.
[FR Doc. 2013-15709 Filed 7-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
